Bye Bye Incandescent Bulbs

“The China government will prohibit imports and sale of 15W to below 60W incandescent light bulb from October 1, 2016, leading to a complete end to use of such lighting product, according to industry sources.
The prohibition is beginning its third phase, with the China government prohibiting the import and sale of 100W and above incandescent light bulbs from October 1, 2012 as the first phase and did so for 60W to below 100W models from October 1, 2014 as the second phase, the sources said.”
See China to completely end use of incandescent bulbs
Wasteful of energy and material, the incandescent light bulb was a major advance over candles, gas-jets, and wicked lamps back in the 19th century. It looks like the reign of the technology will not be two centuries.

The transition to LED lighting has been remarkable. Just a few years ago LED lights became available but were expensive. Now, there are only a few incandescents left in my home, my municipality has replaced our street lights, and some governments are outlawing the old tech. Government is almost irrelevant in this as energy and material savings are huge. These things pay for themselves in a few years and last decades. Efficiency alone precludes staying with incandescent lighting even a few years more.

I notice folks can still buy incandescents locally but they carry subtle messages on the packaging:

  • Long life … Lasts One Year
  • 60 watt…
  • $5.98 CDN…
  • Made in Mexico…

Some are even sold as “antique” lights or “vintage”… Meanwhile, for just a little more money one can buy LED lights rated for decades and using a fraction of the power. Yes, the good old days of wasting tungsten and energy to keep the lights on are numbered.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Bye Bye Incandescent Bulbs

  1. oiaohm says:
    Now you are going from bad to worse.

    Yowie is from Australian Aboriginal Dream-time stories and existing film and photos of question. Of course those doing up the garbage stuff like you quoted match descriptions more descriptions USA Sasquatch not the Yowie. Completely wrong face.

    Lot of these place doing fake stuff cannot even get basic things as nose right.

    Perhaps it’s a long lost sibling of yours, that migrated with the other trash currently invading Europe.
    Do notice how many different native words mean Yowie. In fact most of the early english references use the term yahoo as they got told they were by the natives they were near.

    So you track record of bring in garbage that does not pass basic fact checking is on going.

  2. dougman says:

    Perhaps I should use What about the

    Hey check out the Yowie article in weeklyworldnews, how do you suspect he got there?

    Perhaps it’s a long lost sibling of yours, that migrated with the other trash currently invading Europe.

  3. oiaohm says:
    O I see Ham-Dong the bigoted racist who cannot tell find a correct photo of an Australian aborigine is attempting to make me out as one. I think he better get his fact checking in order.

  4. dougman says:

    Ham-Dong, the racist vegetable picker interjects with his theory of quantum tunneling and how it relates to LED efficiency.

    Oi! Oi! Oi!

  5. oiaohm says:

    and LEDs are about to get a shorter lifespan
    I guess AdmFubar have based this on the following.

    This would seem to be a good thing, but building bulbs to last turns out to pose a vexing problem: no one seems to have a sound business model for such a product. And, paradoxically, this is the very problem that the short life span of modern incandescents was meant to solve.
    Problem is this is not 100 percent true LED makers are trying something different. If you go into a lighting shop you will notice more and more light fittings where the LED is made part of the fitting with no bulb change option. So to change house design you have to change LED and fitting as one. People change clothes before they are worn out as well as lighting fittings. There is always more than 1 way to skin cat. If they can make people change light designs in house change with fashion and to-do that requires changing the complete LED with fitting there is no need to shorten LED lifespan.

    So there is a method to sell more LED lights without shorting operational lifespan just stop making it able to be changed without a electrician to change the complete fitting. More money for electrician and more money per unit.

    AdmFubar old design incandescents do need to be banned to force investment in new tech that could include newer tech incandescent light bulbs.

    AdmFubar lot the reasons why in return of incandescent light is incorrect.
    However even ‘warm’ finish LED or florescent bulbs can only manage an index rating of 80 and most are far less.
    This is incorrect there are LED that have manage to get a index rating of 100.
    The first index rating 90+ LED appeared in 2014. 2015 is the first 100 index leds.

    So that is not an advantage yes florescent only make to 80 with the best design. Same with power usage florescent uses double the power of LED to provide the same light. LED good quality is around 30 percent efficiency not 14 percent.

    AdmFubar so basically 40 percent definitely competitive something to remember is every year the newer generations of LED are reducing power used to product the same light. So 40 percent may not stay ahead.

    But there is a big killer for incandescent lights numbers that fail in shipping. LED is more durable to bad shipping practises than incandescents or florescent in fact most bulb types are weaker than LED in shipping. This is some of the reason why LED price and Incandescent price have been closing in on each other since its rare any of a LED to get to customer not working without a factory screw up.

    So yes MIT made incandescent light more effective question still remains by the time you tool up a factory to make it will it be effective also you don’t have that much cost per bulb to play with incandescent vs LED due to the fact incandescent you have to allow for higher failure rate shipping to customers. First stage of incandescent life shorting was not about shorting bulb life but about improving tolerance shipping by reducing mass of the filament.

    Some of the reasons why current incandescent are having massively reduce lifespan comes if you can check back how much they have been shipped. The more transport distance and incandescent bulb has travel the shorter its operation life will be due to the vibration damage to the filament .

    So you want long life out incandescent bulb be close to factory use a thick filament then you get something that runs for a 100+ years. I see nothing in the MIT Bulb that they have improved how it handles being shipped. Old rule about design a product it does not matter how good you design a product if you cannot deliver it to customers. Slightly poorer design that dependably can be provided to customers is better than a extremely good design product that has shipping problems.

  6. dougman says:

    “some governments are outlawing the old tech. Government is almost irrelevant in this as energy and material savings are huge.”

    Contradictory statement?

    You left out high-pressure mercury and sodium lighting, along with fluorescent lighting and sulfur plasma lighting. Lets not leave out these still viable options.

Leave a Reply